- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16764 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI DR U R KANTHA RAJU S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANISER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU RESIDING AT NO.1 W/121 BHOGADI ROAD OPP.TO RIE QUARTERS GATE MANASA GANGOTHRI POST MYSURU-570006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION MYSURU-570001. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 (BY SRI.SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 & R2: SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 16.05.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 BEARING NO. 1353547/DMA/ENQ2/MYS/31/2024/710 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-M, rejecting the request of the petitioner for payment of financial benefits during the dismissal period since he has not served in the above period. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as a Community Organizer, on 07.01.2000, on a temporary basis. Thereafter, his service has been regularized by order dated 28.10.2005. On 19.10.1998, on the complaint, an FIR has been registered in Crime No. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 271/1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The Sessions case has been registered in S.C.No.53/1999. The Sessions Court, by judgment dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure-A), convicted the petitioner for the offences mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.2089/2016. This Court, by order dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure-B), suspended the sentence. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 09.10.2017 by exercising the power under Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, CCA Rules’), dismissing the petitioner from the service. This Court by judgment dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure-G) allowed Crl.A.No.2089/2016 and acquitted the petitioner from the criminal case. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.02.2024. By order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure- H), the petitioner has been re-instated into the service to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 the post of Community Organizer. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure-K), seeking payment of salary for the period from 22.11.2016 to 25.06.2024. The same has been rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 16.05.2025 vide Annexure-M on the ground that the said period was treated as dies-non or non-duty. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, immediately after the conviction order passed by the Sessions Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.2089/2016. In the appeal, this Court, by order dated 03.07.2017 suspended the sentence imposed against the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation on 13.07.2017 requesting the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work. The respondents have not allowed the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 petitioner to continue the work. Instead of that, he has been dismissed from the service. Therefore, he is entitled for the salary from 22.11.2016 to 25.06.2024. (ii) Secondly, even in the dismissal order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure-F), it is specifically stated that, as per the Circular of the Government dated 26.06.1996, in case, the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled for monetary benefits during the dismissal period. But, contrary to the said Circular, the impugned order has been passed. (iii) Thirdly, immediately after the suspension of sentence passed by this Court, the petitioner was ready to work, but the respondent – Authority has not allowed him to work. Instead of that, he has been dismissed from the service. Because of the fault of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be punished. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 4. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for the respondents raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case which was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. The petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that, in the criminal case he has been convicted. Therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner from the service was not at the behest of the employer, but due to his involvement in some criminal case. Therefore, he is not entitled for the salary during the period when he has not worked. (ii) Secondly, under Rule 114(2)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, any employee who was suspended, the period of suspension has to be treated as dies non or non-duty and any other period treated as dies non shall not be reckoned as service. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 (iii) Thirdly, the Circular dated 26.06.1996 states that the person acquitted in the criminal case is entitled for the back wages only from the date of acquittal, in case he has been dismissed from service on behest of the employer. Otherwise, he is not entitled for the benefit. Therefore, he contended that the authority has rightly rejected the representation and issued the impugned endorsement. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 6. It is not in dispute that criminal case has been registered against the petitioner on 19.10.1998 in Crime No.271/1998 by the Mandya Rural Police for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C.No.53/1999 passed the judgment on 22.11.2016 (Annexure-A), convicting the petitioner. Being aggrieved - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 by the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.2089/2016. This Court, by order dated 03.07.2017, suspended the sentence imposed against the petitioner. Since the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case, the second respondent, by exercising the power under the CCA Rules, dismissed the petitioner from service on 09.10.2017. Thereafter, this Court, by judgment, dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure-G), in Crl.A.No.2089/2016, set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court and acquitted the petitioner from the criminal case. Thereafter, he has been re- instated into the service. 7. The main contention of the petitioner is that, since he has been acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to back wages from 22.11.2016 till 25.06.2024 . 8. The Apex Court in the case of RANCHHODJI CHATURJI THAKORE vs. SUPERINTENDENT - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 ENGINEER, GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD, HIMMATNAGAR (GUJARAT) AND ANOTHER reported in (1996) 11 SCC 603 has held that the question of back wages would be considered only if action by way of disciplinary proceedings is taken against him and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. If the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of his conviction in a criminal case which is punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC, he is not entitled for any back wages. Following the said judgment, the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. JAIPAL SINGH reported in (2004) 1 SCC 121 has held that dismissal of the employee from the service was not at the behest of the employer, but due to his involvement in some criminal case, resulting in disciplinary enquiry and consequential dismissal from the service, hence, he is not entitled to any back wages. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 “4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefor does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon by the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefor it operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in Ranchhodji [(1996) 11 SCC 603 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 491] . If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest of or by the department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 that part of the order directing reinstatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be reinstated in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court insofar as it directed payment of back wages is liable to be and is hereby set aside.” 9. In the case on hand, the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Mandya Rural Police Station in Crime No.271/1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. Later, by judgment dated 22.11.2016 he has been convicted. Hence, the authority, by invoking the power under the CCA Rules dismissed the petitioner from the service by order dated 09.10.2017. The dismissal of the petitioner - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30121 WP No. 16764 of 2025 from the service was not at the behest of the employer but due to his involvement in a criminal case, resulting in disciplinary enquiry, consequently, dismissal from service. Therefore, the period from 22.11.2016 to 25.06.2024 has to be treated as dies-non or non-duty, he is not entitled for any back wages. The authority has rightly issued the impugned endorsement. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit, accordingly, it is dismissed. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the above period, the junior of the petitioner has been promoted. If that would be the case, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation, in accordance with law. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 55